The character and credibility of the speaker, which Aristotle described as ethos, influences the listener. Alan Joyce is a good example of someone suffering poor ethos.

Aristotle suggested three things that build ethos:

1. Good sense (phronesis)
2. Good moral character (arête)
3. Good will towards the audience (eunoia)

I think there’s a fourth item: a good reputation. We can use these four ideas to understand why Alan Joyce is unpopular and negatively affecting the Qantas brand. His interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “7:30” was the latest in a long line of interviews where he came across as defensive and cold. Watch the video below and think about the following four questions:

1. What was his reputation before the interview?
2. Does he make a good argument?
3. Does he communicate leadership and passion?
4. Does he do a good job of acknowledging the feelings of the listener?

Let’s deal with the questions one at a time.

1. What was his reputation before the interview?

To understand why Alan Joyce is suffering from poor credibility and authority, here’s a quick background:

• Since he became CEO in 2008 the share price has halved.
• A #qantasluxury social media experiment backfired.
• There have been many safety incidents and near misses.
• Joyce grounded the entire fleet in 2011, affecting tens of thousands of customers and cancelling 600 flights.

The Qantas brand isn’t in good shape. He has a lot of work to do in his interviews to make up for the poor reputation.

2. Does he make a good argument?

The main point that Joyce is attempting to make is that the deck is stacked against Qantas because the competing airlines have overseas governments bankrolling them.

The problem is that’s not the language he used. His messages were variants of “distortion” (nine mentions) and leveling the “playing field” (five mentions). This relies on assumed knowledge from the 700,000 viewers watching. The story that ran before the interview didn’t mention that the main competitor, Virgin Australia, is partly owned by airlines which are themselves owned by foreign governments. It’s the key to his argument and he failed to mention it. He can’t rely on journalists to do it for him.

3. Does he communicate leadership and passion?

Australians have a strong attachment to “the flying kangaroo.” Joyce should evoke the sense of nostalgia and express his desire to bring back the glory days of the airline. Instead he comes across as defensive and ready to blame anybody else. Two examples:

• “But you don’t know the route profitability of Qantas.”
• “Again, what we’re only after is a fair go for Qantas. I think Australians really respect a fair go. We don’t have a fair go at the moment.”

The problem is that many of Qantas’ problems are of its own making—for example, its failure to buy fuel-efficient airplanes. It is difficult to be passionate when you know you’re largely responsible for the situation. This leads to defensiveness. As a result, he does not look like someone with the ability to get Qantas out of the mess they find themselves in.

He also uses a terrible phrase, “…minimize the amount of cash that we’re burning.” A burning cash metaphor is precisely the wrong image to project.

4. Does he do a good job of acknowledging the feelings of the listener?

Rather than bringing the audience into the story and reassuring them that these changes will make the airline better than ever, Joyce makes technocratic arguments defending his decision to cut jobs and services. It’s a lesson in what not to do when you need people to fall back in love with your brand. A defensive performance is unlikely to generate any sympathy or excitement about what’s to come.

What needs to change

Joyce’s public speaking has improved little in his time as CEO. Yet he’s the face of Qantas. Every time Qantas makes announcements like these, the negative image of the brand is reinforced. It’s why social media disasters like #qantasluxury emerge.

Cutting services and jobs may well be what’s required to save the airline, and in that scenario the reaction is always likely to be negative. But what Joyce and the Qantas board need to understand is that the face the organization projects is also important to its survival. If people continue to see a passionless, uncaring, and defensive CEO, they will take a longer look at the competition, which, incidentally, has a brand that’s bright, fresh, and fun.

To do that, it can’t afford to have a negative press cycle every six to 12 months. It must find ways to generate positive publicity. One way to do that is to recast its CEO as a warm, positive ambassador. If the Australian people can warm up to the CEO they may be persuaded he can turn it around. The alternative is to continue being defensive and joyless. That’s no way to fly.

Which CEOs do you think make their brand? What about the ones that risk breaking it?